Examiner Agreement and Judicial Consensus in Forensic Mental Health Evaluations

Acklin, Marvin W.; Fuger, Kristen; Gowensmith, W. Neil

doi:10.1080/15228932.2015.1051447

Cited by 21 publications

(23 citation statements)

References 46 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…This last theory is supported by a US study where the panel members do not communicate and each provides an independent report; the author found discrepancies between the reports and high percentage of no opinion and split decisions in the criminal responsibility group. 13 Sharing opinions and discussing cases as a panel may allow for a more objective and accurate assessment of the criminal responsibility. Finally non-committal observation reports may be related to the court mixing both enquiries at the same time in all cases, despite the CPA, allowing the accused to be probably referred for observation in terms of section 77 or 78.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…These two enquiries are different especially with regard to the legal outcome, and it would be relevant to separate them as in other countries. 13 , 14 This may be recommended for many reasons; in some cases the enquiry into the criminal responsibility (section 78) is not relevant leading to a non-conclusive report. This may have been prevented if the enquiry was more specific and only made in terms of section 77, especially when a long time has elapsed between the commission of the alleged offence and the enquiry.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…These findings are consistent with the literature. 5 , 13 , 14 Discrepancies may be because of the absence of consensus or the presence of split opinions, or judges utilising other information concerning defendants not available to examiners. 14 There were also cases where individuals were admitted as state patients for an indefinite period when they did not commit a serious offence and this is not in keeping with the provisions of the CPA.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Forensic psychiatric assessment process and outcome in state patients in KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa

2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundIndividuals who were charged with a serious offence may be referred by courts for forensic psychiatric assessment. The court may declare them as state patients if they are found unfit to stand trial or not criminally responsible because of mental illness or defect.In forensic psychiatry practice, there may be challenges in the forensic psychiatric observation process, and discrepancies may occur between the clinician report and the court’s decision.ObjectivesTo describe elements of the forensic psychiatric observation and discuss the legal correlates associated with the admission of state patients.MethodA retrospective study of the forensic psychiatric observation records of 91 newly admitted state patients at a forensic unit in KwaZulu-Natal over a 3-year period.ResultsA total of 71 state patients (78.02%) were found not fit to stand trial and 10 patients (10.99%) were not criminally responsible. Nine patients (9.89%) were fit to stand trial and criminally responsible but still declared state patients and 13 state patients (14.29%) did not commit a serious offence. There was correlation for diagnosis between the assessing and the treating psychiatrists.ConclusionThe findings of the forensic observation were not always considered by the courts. Individuals found fit to stand trial, those found criminally responsible and those who did not commit serious crimes were declared state patients.A better understanding of legal dispositions for mentally ill offenders and an active collaboration between judicial and mental health systems may contribute in developing national guidelines for observation and admission of state patients.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Forensic psychiatric assessment process and outcome in state patients in KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa

2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Diagnostic studies range from poor to good for some psychosis-related constructs such as positive symptoms, including delusions. Level of agreement for forensic judgments indicates poor reproducibility and high level of error in CR decision-making (Acklin et al, 2015 ). These errors are not inconsequential.…”

Section: Interrater Reliability In Clinical and Forensic Decision Makingmentioning

confidence: 99%

Improving Criminal Responsibility Determinations Using Structured Professional Judgment

Acklin

Velasquez

2021

Front. Psychol.

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Forensic psychologists commonly utilize unstructured clinical judgment in aggregating clinical and forensic information in forming opinions. Unstructured clinical judgment is prone to evaluator bias and suboptimal levels of inter-rater reliability. This article proposes Structured Professional Judgment (SPJ) methods as a potential remedy. Following a review of canonical forensic assessment models, the prevalence of bias in forensic judgments, and inter-rater agreement in criminal responsibility (CR) determinations, this article presents a SPJ model for CR evaluations translated from violence risk assessment methodology. A systematic user-friendly methodology is described, applying procedural checklists, application of a mental state at time of the offense (MSO) model using structured data collection methods, aggregation of empirical evidence guidelines, and post-hoc hypothesis testing using the Analysis of Competing Hypotheses (ACH). A case study describes application of the procedural and CR decision model in a complex homicide case. The model demonstrates the power and efficacy of the application of SPJ to forensic decision-making and is relevant to other types of forensic assessment (e.g., competency to stand trial, post-acquittal release decision-making).

show abstract

“…Although forensic evaluators are not triers of fact, judicial decisions are overwhelmingly correlated to opinions of forensic evaluators; 2 studies have shown that judges follow the opinions of evaluators in 76%-99% of cases. [3][4][5][6] These opinions can be far-reaching. For example, evaluations of adjudicative competency or sanity can influence whether a defendant is temporarily detained in a correctional facility, hospital, or released to the community-and they may also ultimately lead to charges being dismissed.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Tipping the scales of justice: the role of forensic evaluations in the criminalization of mental illness

McCallum

Gowensmith

2019

CNS Spectr.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

An unprecedented number of individuals with mental illness are represented in the criminal justice system. The unending growth of mentally ill populations in the justice system has led to jails and court dockets being increasingly overwhelmed with cases involving mental illness, state hospitals devoting far more beds and resources to forensic cases, and people without a criminal commitment left waiting for mental health services as forensic cases are prioritized. Although a forensic mental health evaluation is only one component of this larger system, common problems with forensic mental health evaluations can exacerbate the criminalization of persons with mental illness in many ways. This article reviews the current literature regarding issues of quality, reliability, and validity of forensic mental health evaluations, discusses the broader impact of these issues, and offers potential solutions for the field.

show abstract

Examiner Agreement and Judicial Consensus in Forensic Mental Health Evaluations

Cited by 21 publications

References 46 publications

Forensic psychiatric assessment process and outcome in state patients in KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa

Forensic psychiatric assessment process and outcome in state patients in KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa

Improving Criminal Responsibility Determinations Using Structured Professional Judgment

Tipping the scales of justice: the role of forensic evaluations in the criminalization of mental illness

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About